Wilson v. Gentry, No. 5:2018cv00280 - Document 19 (N.D. Ala. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 11/19/2018. (PSM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. Gentry Doc. 19 FILED 2018 Nov-19 PM 02:14 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION JACK HAROLD WILSON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. MATT GENTRY, Sheriff, Respondent. Case No.: 5:18-cv-00280-LSC-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an action for a writ of habeas corpus action filed by petitioner Jack Harold Wilson, pro se, on or about February 20, 2018. (Doc. 1). The petitioner, a pre-trial detainee, challenged the revocation of his bond and his continued detention pending a retrial on assault charges. On October 19, 2018, the magistrate judge to whom the case was referred entered a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that habeas relief be denied. (Doc. 18). Although the petitioner was notified of his right to file objections within fourteen (14) days, no objections have been filed with the court. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the petition 1 Dockets.Justia.com for writ of habeas corpus is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the grounds of the bond revocation, and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the grounds of double jeopardy. Further, because the petition does not present issues that are debatable among jurists of reason, a certificate of appealability is also due to be DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. A separate Final Order will be entered. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
